Talk:Amerigo Vespucci

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Rather a lot of plagiarism in this article[edit]

Large portions of this article appear to be cribbed directly from the New World Encyclopedia article on Vespucci at Earwig's results can be seen here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjl72 (talkcontribs) 23:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Discovered by Columbus?[edit]

Is there any reason that this article says that the New World was discovered by Columbus? Columbus's own article clearly states that he is "Sometimes thought of erroneously as the discoverer of the New World". Czar Baldy Bald IV (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have butts to a lecture by Dr. F. Fernandez-Armesto, he has butts studied everything there is to know about Vespucci including all of his letters, personal journals, butts and butts. From what I remembered of the lecture he said that Vespucci had landed in South East coast of modern time US years before Columbus and didn't knew it. After his people left and went back to Spain to report their finding Columbus then landed on America soil. According to Dr. Fernandez-Armesto Vespucci didn't even charter the boat, he was merely a helper. I don't remember much of the details, you can look up Dr. Fernandez-Armesto's book for details.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Well you're right that Vespucci set foot on mainland America before Columbus did....but so did I! See ironically, Columbus himself never actually visited the mainland. But as someone who has also read all of Vespucci's letters and personal journals (which is way less impressive than it sounds, he didn't actually write that much lol), I can tell you that Columbus' voyage definitely came first.
As for his position on the ship, Vespucci was more than just a "helper"...ehm, probably. Actually, his exact position is not quite clear from the existing evidence. In my undergraduate thesis I argued—pretty convincingly, I must say—that his actual job title was something akin to "Chief Scientist".
--Xiaphias (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Both explorers were Italian, and both traveled on spanish ships on behalf of the spanish government so such a dispute would be driven by interest on countries to claim the discovery which is not the case. Common knowledge sets Columbus arrival in 1492 on today's Haiti, and Vespucci first enrollment in the navy wasn't until 1499 according to the wiki italian article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcnegron (talkcontribs) 21:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Well its first discovers were of course its indigenous people themselves. While it's true that Columbus' arrival was predated by that of the Vikings, they fact that they unknowingly set foot on this continent, never told anyone, and then forgot about it is typically regarded as little more than an interesting historical footnote.--Xiaphias (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Afaik Columbus is still considered to have rediscovered the Americas (after the Vikings). I've occasionally seen the mentioning of other European ships reaching the Americas earlier, but as far as I can tell that's mostly fringe and none of that has been really accepted by mainstream historical scholarship. But independent of the case of other Europeans arriving slightly earlier, it was Columbus trip/"discovery" and none other that lead to widespread knowledge of the Americas in Europe and the subsequent colonization.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
aff it is not important who was the first to reach the americas...because none of previous voyages (real or alleged) had ,has or will have consequences,an impact on history— Preceding unsigned comment added by 098765987667m (talkcontribs) 08:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
None of your opinions (real or alleged) had, has, or will have any consequenses on our article unless accompanied by reliable sources.
SpinningSpark 11:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Columbus nor amerigo Vespucci discovered anything new. Racism tends to influence the use of terms like "Columbus/vespucci discovered ____" Now if we want to be accurate we could indicate that the first Europeans to land in ____were Columbus and Vespucci but even that is flawed, since the Vikings had been in America many years before. I mostly agree with you Kmhkmh re the Vikings, but I don't think most editors of the original article are for accuracy at all. -- (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason Columbus thought that America was India was because he didn't know that the New World existed. In fact, at that time, many thought that what is now America was part of Asia. So he though the could simply go southwest and eventually get progress. And before the Panama Canal was dug. So what we know is:

So much nonsense. " ...didn't knew it" is illiterate. Columbus's first landfall in the Western Hemisphere was not on Haiti, but on the island of San Salvador in the Bahamas. Columbus thought he had arrived at an island off the coast of Japan. He never understood as long as he lived that he had happened upon a "new world". He went across the Atlantic on the latitude of the Canary Islands since that was at the time the dividing line between the Spanish and Portuguese spheres as determined by the Treaty of Alcacovas in 1481 and he needed to stay out of the Portuguese part. He was able to know the latitude, roughly, of where he was. At the time longitudes could not be determined with any accuracy. Attempts are made from time to time to discover someone (from Europe) who arrived in the Western Hemisphere before Columbus, but these have been shot down and the issue is pointless. The discovery of the Western Hemisphere that had consequences for history was that of Columbus, period! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be made more clear what geographic area the voyage encountered. The North American continent was never established as landfall in any description. However, it is widely implied as the source of numerous name associations of not only for 'USA' but also the indigenous population 'American Indian' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:8988:E859:ED65:DCF4:AA2C:5714 (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

“Vespucci set foot on mainland America before Columbus”?! It’s claimed only in the “Lettera al Soderini” – in the original “Partimmo di questo porto (e la provincia si dice Parias)” and there isn’t any other document that can prove that this voyage was real. (excepting “Frammento Ridolfi”, but there it is only mentioned and in addition – the letter most probably has the same author!), Columbus without any doubts visited the mainland - he did it during his third and fourth voyage. And finally - I “has also read all of Vespucci's letters and personal journals” - in the italian from the beginning of the XVI-th century.

Kmhkmh’s “it was Columbus trip/"discovery" and none other that lead to widespread knowledge of the Americas in Europe and the subsequent colonization” and I should add “The Columbus project and energy to realize it” Dino Rediferro (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Birth date + year[edit]

Authorities seem to disagree on Amerigo Vespucci's birth date and even year.

The current Wikipedia article adds to the confusion. The lead says "Amerigo Vespucci (March 11, 1454 – February 22, 1512)". The infobox says "Born March 18, 1454, Florence, Italy".

Is there any way to resolve this? Are there any reliable sources for the dates "March 11" and "March 18"? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC) In fact he was born on March 9th of 1454 (see Bueno again, p. 8).

The correct name for his mother was Lisa de Andrea Mini (see Bueno, p. 8)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 

Additional Reference[edit]

This article should be edited to add a reference to a recent article in Smithsonian Magazine:

  • Toby Lester, "Putting America on the Map", Smithsonian, Volume 40, Number 9, p. 78, December 2009

Komowkwa (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Important reference not cited: Consuelo Varela Bueno, Amerigo Vespucci (Madrid: Anaya, 1988). She is impartial on the topic and a great scholar of Columbus and New World discovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC) In fact the whole article should be dumped and rewritten by someone who can read Spanish and who uses the concise and 100% reliable little book by Bueno. It would be informative and clear and accurate and not full of confusions and nonsense.

Other references should be added:

G. Caraci, Questione e polemiche vespucciane, 2 vols., Rome, 1955.

F. A. Varnhagen, Amerigo Vespucci. Son caractere, ses ecrits (memes les moins authentiques), sa vie et se navigations, avec une carte indiquant les routes. Lima (Peru), 1985.

H. Vignaud, Americ Vespuce (1451-1512) Paris, 1917. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


Vespucci died from malaria in Seville in 1512. He died on February 22, 1512 in Seville, Spain, of an unknown cause. These two sentences contracdict each other. I don't know which is correct, but the page needs a correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed this "???The previous subsection states the cause of Vespucci's death is unknown..." from the article. It is not the place to put such comments. This is the correct place to do that. If you know which is correct then make the change, otherwise make the comment here and someone who does know the answer will edit it into the article. Nick Beeson (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Bueno says the cause of his death is not known for sure, but she suspect he may have died from the plague that struck Seville in 1510 since when he made his will in 1511 he says he is very ill. (Bueno, p. 100). This article should be rewritten by someone who reads Spanish and follow the concise but utterly reliable short bio written by Bueno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


Why does the introduction not include the most important fact about Vespucci, that he was the first to suggest that a new continent had been discovered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow good point. Not sure how this was overlooked for the past 18 months but I've rectified it. --Xiaphias (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot else neglected in this article. Vespucci went to Paris in 1478 as secretary to his uncle, Guido Antonio and was the writer of the correspondence (as much as has been preserved) of this embassy. It was in Paris that Vespucci met Bartolome Colon, the brother of Christopher, who was there to try to persuade the king to support Columbus's idea to sail west to the Indies. Vespucci returned to Florence in 1482 and soon became a trusted servant of one branch of the Medici family. He was in Florence until 1491 when he moved to Seville. He arrived in Seville sometime (not known exactly between 10 November of 1491 and March 10th 1492. He went there to straighten out some mercantile matters for the Medici whose agents had made a mess of things. We do know that Vespucci met Columbus without doubt in Barcelona when Columbus on his return from his first voyage gave a report to Ferdinand and Isabel. Vespucci was also there and from then on the two became close friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

“who first demonstrated that Braziland the West Indies did not represent Asia's eastern outskirts”.

Vespucci never demonstrated that tne new discovered territories are part of new continent. Much more – the only documents, where they are cold “new world” are “Mundus novus” and so called “Lettera al Soderini”, which the big part of the scholars consider compilations written by others. In addition in his three letters to Lorenzo di Medici and in the so called “Frammento Ridolfi” Vespucci talks about “eastern Asia”. Thus the text would be changed to “who probably was the first man to name the new discovered territories “new world” “ or something similar. Dino Rediferro (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Naming of America[edit]

The idea that the American continents were named after Amerigo Vespucci has long been held as erroneous - it most probably being named after Richard Amerike, who mostly funded Cabot's expeditions. The Article page should note this more likely theory alongside its opening gambit about Vespucci's claim - which if were really the case, the continents would be known as Vespuccia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The claim is not erroneus, but still the most accepted explanation for the term America (based on historical evidence). The more recent competing explanation using Amerike (there are others) doesn't seem to have gotten much traction yet and the sources used in Amerike's WP entry are rather meager, based on that I'd currently regard the Amerike thing as fringe (for now).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if Amerike is a strong candidate, but it also seems unlikely that is was named after Vespucci, simply because of the convention in place naiming after people that uses first names for Royalty and surnames for non-royals. I personally cannot think of any exceptions Dainamo (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You can't? I can. Plenty. e.g. Madeira, Brasil, Gold Coast, Ivory Coast, etc. are all named after products of the land. Labrador is named after its explorer. In the Vesconte de Maggiolo map of 1504/5, America was first named "Terra di Gonsalvo Coigi" ("Land of Goncalo Coelho", the commander of Vespucci's third voyage.) So, yeah, "America" was perfectly natural, given that it was a map accompanying a book of Vespucci's voyages Waldsemuller didn't stick with it, though - he renamed it "Brasilia" in his 1516 map. Walrasiad (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The academic sources I've encountered have consistently cited Vespucci as the most likely source of the name "America", and none have posited another person (such as this Richard Amerike) to be a more likely candidate. My research has hardly been exhaustive in this area, but that seems to be the general consensus. --Xiaphias (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of reason to believe that Vespucci made the second voyage to Brazil from 10 May, 1503 to 18 June 1504. His nephew, Juan Vespucci testified in Seville in 1515 that his uncle had gone to Brazil TWICE. (See Bueno, p. 60). Furthermore this voyage described by Vespucci, who may have been a pilot, fits perfectly into the context of the First Lease of Brazil, from 1502-1505. The ship of the captain had a shipwreck on August 10, 1503 at the island named later Fernao de Loronha (or Noronha). The clear reason for the name was that the armadores of the voyage were the consortium that held the First Lease led by Fernao de Loronha. This voyage also established the factory specified in the First Lease at Cabo Frio in 1504 as Varnhagen says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of evidence for Richard Amerike, especially with documentary evidence slowly coming out and articles like this along with a possibility of a link to the US flag directly linked to the Amerike coat of arms which was apparently widely used long before Washington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

<copyvio removed from 21:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)>

I have created a new article Naming of America.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for help editing related article[edit]

This is over at the article about the cartographer that named the continent after Vespucci. Thanks. (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


Edit request on 4 January 2012[edit]

I suggest TWO corrections to the 1st paragraph: "Amerigo Vespucci was born and raised in the Florence, in what is now Italy. He was the third son of Ser Nastagio (Anastasio), a Florentine notary, and Lisabetta Mini.[3] Amerigo Vespucci was educated by his uncle, Fra Giorgio Antonio Vepsucci, a Dominican friar of San Marco in Florence."

1) change "in the Florence" into "in Florence"

2) change "Antonio VePSucci" into "Antonio VeSPucci"

Thank you very much in advance.

Fontanitum (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your vigilance! Favonian (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


The article is semi-protected, thus I cannot edit. Please, add the italian pronunciation according to the IPA as follows: Italian pronunciation: [ameˈriɡo vesˈputtʃi]. -- (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

DoneBility (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Grave / tomb[edit]

Where is his grave / tomb ?

Unknown. There is even some debate over where or when he died. (most assume it is February 22, 1412, at Seville). In his will, Vespucci noted that he wanted to be buried in the graveyard of a Franciscan church in Seville, ideally in the church of the family of his wife, Maria Cerezo. Unfortunately, we have no idea which church that is or even if that plan went through (his will seems to suggests he anticipates the Franciscan friars might have problems with that). There is a tomb by the altar of the church of Santa Maria di Ognissanti in Florence with his name (picture at commons), which tourists often assume is Vespucci's. But that is actually the tomb of his grandfather, also called Amerigo Vespucci, who according to records died on July 5, 1471 (as you see reflected in the date there). The Ognissanti was the Vespucci family church, and they donated a lot to it, and several family members are buried there. But to our knowledge, Amerigo the navigator, isn't there. Walrasiad (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean 1512, right? He was buried in Seville in a Franciscan habit. This was popular at the time and in fact both Queen Isabella and Columbus were buried clothed in a Franciscan habit (see Bueno, 100). Vespucci wanted to be buried in the mausoleum of his father in law in the Church of San Miguel in Seville. But we cannot be certain he was buried there since the edifice was destroyed by fire early in the 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Havin rear that I withdraw my proposal - which was erroneous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2788:1028:F8:C01B:263B:85C6:3F6A (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


Could someone update. Vespucio was naturalized Castilian on April 24th 1505. pg555("obtuvo carta de naturaleza en Castilla por Real cedula de Toro"). (notice: It was not possible to be naturalized spanish at that time because Spain was not a kingdom) He was naturalized Castilian by Ferdinand in gratitude for his services. (See Bueno, p. 68). He went to work for the Casa de Contratacion in 1507 and in 1508 was made Piloto Mayor of the Casa by the regent Ferdinand of Castile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Amerigo Vespucci[edit]

does anyone know anything about Amerigo Vespucci please help me and my class mates we are doing a power point about this person please help us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F700:1:BE:B4A1:1C2:6FE9:1363 (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Help us how? Can you be more precise? Walrasiad (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the answer here is for you to read the article and then do your own homework. We do not do your projects for you here, and in any case this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not improvements to your cousework. If, after reading the article, you still have questions you could try asking at our reference desk. SpinningSpark 17:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


The list of references should include the book of Stefan Zweig: Amerigo: A Comedy of Errors in History. First published by Viking Press in 1942. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The list of references is supposed to consist of works that have actually been used to construct the article. If no facts in the article came from this book then it does not belong in the references. It might be suitable for the "Further reading" section, but does such an old book have more information than those already in the references? SpinningSpark 09:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, SpinnigSpark, this old book can be more useful than many new articles. And ... “The names of Amerigo Vespucci's ships were theSan Antiago, Repertaga, Wegiz, and the Girmand.” Considering that “Lettera al Soderini” is the only source where the “first” Vespucci’s voyage is described (excepting “Frammento Ridolfi”, but there it is only mentioned), I’m very curious from which source these names of ships are taken?

Confusing infobox entry - edit request[edit]

The Nationality entry in the infobox (nationality = Italian, Florentine) needs to be removed as it is anachronistic and confusing. No Italian nationality existed at the time. Furthermore, "Florentine" currently redirects to the city of Florence rather than to the city-state of the Republic of Florence. The clearly worded birthplace entry is all that's needed here imo: "birth_place = Florence, Republic of Florence, in present-day Italy". (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I decided to only do a half-fix, so that nationality is now "Florentine (Italian)", directed to the Republic of Florence. Nonetheless, I decided to retain the term Italian (but in parenthesis, and linked to "Italian people", the ethnicity, rather than the state). It might be helpful for schoolchildren who might see him referred to as "Italian" in their schoolbooks and think they are contradictory. Walrasiad (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying and I appreciate your reasoning: "Italian people" is correct and admirably clear, imo. (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarify geography, please?[edit]

"About 1499–1500, Vespucci joined an expedition in the service of Spain, with Alonso de Ojeda (or Hojeda) as the fleet commander. The intention was to sail around the southern end of the African mainland into the Indian Ocean.[8] After hitting land at the coast of what is now Guyana, the two seem to have separated."

How did they get from trying to round Africa to hitting land at Guyana?

Magpie54 (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2014[edit]


He died of malaria, not of an unknown cause (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 16:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Soderini letter[edit]

" the rediscovery in the 18th century of other letters by Vespucci, primarily the Soderini Letter, " The letter to Piero Soderinji was published in c 1505. Something is garbled here..--Wetman (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This whole article leaves a lot to be desired. But I see the intention of the original editor was to indicate that the 18th C. manuscript letters cast doubt on the published Soderini letter (see the Magnaghi thesis note at the bottom). Quick fix made. Walrasiad (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Super Continent[edit]

The introductory paragraph uses the phrase "super continent" incorretly and should just say "continent" (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've unlinked it. The target article is clearly not relevant, but the term is clearly used in reliable sources with the meaning used in this article as is shown by the number of gbook hits for Eurasian supercontinent. SpinningSpark 00:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ferdinand II of Arago(r)n[edit]

Only a minor edit in Final Years:

[...] made the pilot major of Spain by Ferdinand II of Aragorn [...]

i.e. remove the extra erroneous 'r' in the name of the then regent of spain and link it to the already existing page about him.

Donik (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done: [1]. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 20:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Bad article, does not fulfil its purpose[edit]

The sole reason for ascribing this man importance is that he realised that America was not Asia. However, the article makes no clear indication as to the source of this notion, or how Amerigo supposedly established the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's true that the article should make this clear, but Amerigo is also important as an early explorer, as is John Cabot etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a terrible article[edit]

As a non-historian, the very first paragraph is incredibly perplexing. I understand that it's incredibly fun to write things in an elitist manner to exclude people who aren't peddling the same trade as you. But it won't fly here.

If the article is not overhauled, I will initiate the process of replacing it with a stub until a better one is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:ECCF:FC00:D545:7B23:9F:B9B3 (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you not understand exactly? Maybe you can read the same article at Wikipedia in simple English. Alex2006 (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The article as a whole is badly written, but replacing it with a stub would be unacceptable, of course. Part of the problem is that it is hard to nail down the facts about Amerigo. Nevertheless the information could be presented more clearly and in a less confusing form. For example, there are two separate sections, one called "Expeditions" and one called "Voyages". The dates given are confusing, and it is unclear when he stopped working for Portugal and started working for Spain.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Amerigo Vespucci. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2016[edit]

Could somebody add the Death date and age template to "|death_date = February 22, 1512" to "|death_date = {death date and age|1512|2|22|1454|3|9}" to show Amerigo Vespucci's death age? (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC) (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89(T·C) 03:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amerigo Vespucci. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Verbatim quote?[edit]

I removed the text "(for other hypotheses, see the footnote in the introduction)" from this article, in the section "Historical Role" right after "... prevalent view." Such a parenthetical statement seems like a sure sign that somebody copied and pasted from a book without looking closely. I don't have the book in question, but certainly someone needs to ensure the Historical Role section is making its verbatim quotes clear (and not using too many).

Dranorter (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2016[edit] (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

amerigo vesspuci named maerica.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talkcontribs) 23:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)